skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Godfather of Modernity: The Alan Leo Legacy Vol. One - Early Astrological Journals 1890-1912, compiled by Philip M Graves
Reviewed by Deborah Houlding
Lilly's Considerations
compiled by D. Houlding
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
The Babylonian Astrolabe: the Calendar of Creation, by Rumen K. Kolev
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Is Pluto really a planet
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kurgal



Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 197
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was surprised and sort of horrified to hear about Pluto's demotion. However I am convinced that most, if not all, modern astrologers will continue to use Pluto.

As mostly a "modern" astrologer, I feel that it would be negligent of me not to advise a client of an up-coming Pluto transit to a personal planet esp. Sun, Moon, Venus. The experiences brought by these transits cannot be denied.

I also feel Pluto is important by way of aspect (to a lesser degree house placement) in natal astrology.

I do not personally use Pluto for sign rulerships and I have been persuaded by discussions on these boards and in various texts and elsewhere that the traditional rulerships are effective.

Anyway that's my two cents worth.

If anyone wants to know why I havent been posting on these boards for over a year well....I was undergoing a Pluto transit. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi kurgal,

As a matter of fact I have been wondering where you were. It was nice to see your name pop up again. I know what you mean by the Pluto transit thing. Finished one myself a year or so ago. Now all I have to look forward to is Pluto entering my 12th house (this year sometime I think) and then bumping over Mercury, Jupiter, Sun and Saturn who are all in a tight stellium of about four degrees. Can't wait. Laughing

Welcome back.
Sue
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kurgal



Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 197
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Sue.

I'll be making an effort to post a bit more again. I also need to make more of an effort in learning more about traditional techniques. I've been lazy. It's good to keep pushing the boundaries - it's so easy just to keep falling back on a few tried and trusted astrological techniques.

I don't want to divert this thread topic, but there are a couple of case-studies I have done on event charts for sentencing cases, (law is proving to be a fertile ground for using traditional astrology - in particular event charts), which I think are interesting, and I have been meaning to post about these for a while - alas sheer laziness has stopped me from posting!!

Anyway I promise to post these soon!!

I came back to this forum specifically to look for a thread on Pluto's demotion - sure enough I found one. Smile When I heard about this on the late news last Friday, I almost dropped my tea in my lap, such was my shock and surprise Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi kurgal,

Some event charts would be wonderful. I would certainly like to see them. It would be great to explore some practical things that have an outcome. I was just reading some of Barbara Watter's stuff on legal charts yesterday. It would be a great learning tool. May I suggest that you post the chart giving the outline of the event without full details so that it forces us to have a good think about it before we know the answer. But, of course do it the way you think is best.

And I'm glad we didn't disappoint you over the Pluto issue. It is amusing that the astronomers are arguing over it as much as the astrologers. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3207
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It is amusing that the astronomers are arguing over it as much as the astrologers.


I wrote some tongue-in-cheek stuff about astrologers stumbling all over each other on account of Pluto's demotion. And I've seen a few newspaper and magazine headlines: Pluto 1930 - 2006, but the astrologers are amazing.

The simplest thing for them to do is nothing. Just continue with what they've been doing with Pluto. Yet a lot of them are behaving as though Pluto used to work now it doesn't or maybe the entire astrological structure needs to be re-thought. Astrologers should set their own terms, not be guided by astronomers. Pluto is what Pluto is, and if Pluto has an effect in the chart, a simple change in the astronomy defintion isn't going to change anything. You'd think the astrologers would be able to see that.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kurgal



Joined: 04 Jan 2005
Posts: 197
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The simplest thing for them to do is nothing. Just continue with what they've been doing with Pluto. Yet a lot of them are behaving as though Pluto used to work now it doesn't or maybe the entire astrological structure needs to be re-thought. Astrologers should set their own terms, not be guided by astronomers. Pluto is what Pluto is, and if Pluto has an effect in the chart, a simple change in the astronomy defintion isn't going to change anything. You'd think the astrologers would be able to see that.

Tom



I agree. It is disturbing that their confidence should be so easily shaken. They should have the courage of their convictions. Especially given the general view that Pluto is a planet of enormous "power." That power isn't likely to disappear overnight simply because astronomers have changed the rules by which they classify things, surely??

Whereas I've had clients who've just experienced Jupiter and Neptune transits come back to me with "hmm I'm not sure I really noticed anything," they never say that after a Pluto or Saturn transit! it's usually more like "you never warned me enough!" Smile

It's not a wishy-washy planet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
granny_skot



Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 1633
Location: California, USA

Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom and Kurgal,

a thought, I think the shaken feelings are indicative of the cultural snubbing of astrology, Astronomy and Math used to be taught that one might Understand Astrology, Somewhere along the line they became thought of as superior to Astrology. This is such an odd concept for me, but then I'm known to think a little differently. What I see is Astrologers letting themselves be dictated too. Allowing themselves to be considered less than astronomers. How unhealthy is that?

okay just a thought....

Granny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tumbling Sphinx



Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 247

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sue,

Quote:
"No traditional astrologer believes that Pluto relates to Scorpio."


Not sure how this relates to what I mentioned. Not every astrologer starts from traditional pov. Many have & do start from modern pov associating Pluto with Scorpio. If interested in Scorpio, those who start from a modern frame of reference have been known to backtrack through to rulerships Mars etc.

Quote:
"It is astronomers who are determining whether Pluto, for example, is a planet or not."


I don't think Pluto being a planet or not was in question. Pluto's still a planet. Simply re-ordered/re-categorized as a "dwarf" and leader of a new group.

Quote:
"Well, then, if Ceres wasn't that important before it was declared a planet then why is it suddenly important because a bunch of astronomers decide to change the definition of a planet?"


Ceres was important.
Previously as a Fixed Star Spica (of Virgo constellation, to the Romans "Spica" was "Ceres").
The name lent to the (re)discovery of the planet in another earth sign, reappointed 'asteroid', redefined as a small planet.

Quote:
"And we have people saying something along the lines of welcoming Ceres with open arms and wouldn't it be good if it could rule Virgo."


1 person, a student. Who an authority in the field promptly checked. Appears to be blowing one comment out of proportion. And even if it was granted to one constellation as exhibiting certain qualities related to that region of the skies, I fail to see how that would over-turn primary ruler ... instead, potentially bringing forward certain other qualities of the primary ruler.

Quote:
"And if modern astrologers are so willing to include new things in the chart when astronomers either discover them or declare them to be more important than before then why didn't modern astrologers go along with the '13th sign' change when astronomers decided to change the list of constellations on the ecliptic and put Ophiuchus there around 1930?

...Orphiuchus has long been an important constellation and was depicted on the Farnese Globe in the second century BCE. It was also included in Ptolemy's list in Almagest. But no one included it as a sign in the tropical zodiac because it does not make sense to do so. I find it hard to believe that ancient astrologers/astronomers were not aware that Orphiuchus was on the ecliptic. "


Sorry, Sue - I found this all a bit contradictory and confusing, not sure what point it was you were making.

Ancient astrologers were aware of this constellation, had charted this constellation - the modern/western identification of it on the ecliptic was not new, except perhaps to western consciousness.
http://www.geocities.com/astrologyconstellations/ophiuchus.htm

Are you suggesting the ancients charted constellations (stars) on and beyond the ecliptic but didn't relate them into the schematic and use them for interpretive purposes?

The tropical zodiac is a homogenization of the Sun's path, ie. approx. equal division of space/time per sign during course of a year and part & parcel of that's the calendar.
Change to 13 signs would flow through to change to 13 months ... this not being a new concept either, calendrical change being another part of the considerations leading into '30s which also dates back to ancient times (insertion of 13th month from time to time etc. http://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=calhistory/earlier/greek).

Astronomers didn't change anything with Ophiuchus - was already there, not a new discovery.
Proposed introduction of a 13th month http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/13-month.htm was not new either.
But if division of annual time is by 12, remains 12 due to general consensus, and that's the quality of time society functions by, then it follows so do astrologers functioning within that society for astrology to be applicable to the times.

Quote:
"The integrity of the system already in place would be severely compromised as it has been with that of rulerships."


Imo, the integrity of the system was compromised when the heliocentric order was broadly adopted to the detriment of geocentric. The order as it related back to earth was overturned. The emphasis on the heliocentric model brought with it developments and new perspectives to western consciousness - and would appear is primarily the base of 'modern' astrology - however, 'tradition' integrates both 'orders'.

Quote:
"The tropical zodiac is very clearly no longer defined by astronomical reality so why depend on the current astronomical reality now?"


If you exclude astronomical reality (either now or back at some point of origin), what is astrology based on?

Tropical zodiac was defined through a homogenization process based upon astronomical reality of the time - the original principles still hold true and carry forward. The fact that current astronomical reality reveals a progression (& precession) from it's earlier years also reflects developmental shifts through time. To suggest point of origin has no bearing on or measure of truth to current reality I admittedly find odd.

Astrology arose from astronomical reality, why would it be devoid of astronomical reality now? Without it astrology wouldn't exist and no-one would be erecting charts, past or present.

Quote:
"If astrology and astronomy go hand in hand then astrologers would currently consider the cardinal points to be Pisces, Taurus, Virgo and Sagittarius."


How do you figure that?

And if someone doesn't know or isn't learning about the 'astronomical reality' of the planets/lights/stars (incl. earth) that they're philosophizing about (which the ancients studied intently), then what is it they're philosophizing about?

Quote:
"Are we going to stick them all in the chart too without due consideration?"


Due consideration by whom? Leading astrological authorities? If so, then why place such emphasis on one student's comment? Those leading research are duly considering developments ... and there's no demands imposed upon anyone as to what they choose to stick in charts for consideration.

Everyone has their own limitations as to what the mind's capable of embracing and making sense of, and some simply operate within tighter limitations than others. Can limit to cycles of Sun & Moon with effective results if one should choose.
But if those tighter limitations hamper development towards further understanding then imo that's just as problematic as not understanding the foundations upon which it was built in the first place.

Quote:
"There is no relationship between Pluto and Scorpio except when Pluto is actually in Scorpio."


I think the discovery chart suggests otherwise.

Quote:
"Apparently there are currently another twelve heavenly bodies waiting in the wings to be called planets. Are we going to stick them all in the chart too without due consideration?"


If they're not stuck in a chart and researched then how do they get duly considered by astrologers?

Quote:
"Since Pluto's orbit crosses into Neptune's ..."


It doesn't, eg.

Quote:
"What about Pluto crossing Neptune's orbit?
    Partly this issue has come up from an incorrect statement in an AP wire story which says that Pluto is autmatically disqualified because it crosses the orbit of Neptune. Untrue.

"... surely this means Neptune has not cleared out Pluto and thus is not a planet, right? No. Neptune has a mass more than 8000 times greater than that of Pluto, and, in fact, totally dominates Pluto's region of the Kuiper belt. Much of the material in the Kuiper belt has indeed been tossed aside or accumulated by Neptune, but a very special region ("the Plutinos") have actually been captured by Neptune instead."


Ref: Mike Brown, Caltech:
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/eightplanets/

and

http://www.nineplanets.org/plutodyn.html

Tom:
Quote:
"...or maybe the entire astrological structure needs to be re-thought."


And maybe this could be a good thing.

To re-think any structure involves learning about the structure that it was built upon. For those not aware of the predecessors to the "modern" frame-of-reference such a review may open eyes to a whole new depth of traditional wisdom.
All-in-all might find the Pluto review empowers the tradition.

TS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Are you suggesting the ancients charted constellations (stars) on and beyond the ecliptic but didn't relate them into the schematic and use them for interpretive purposes?


I have almost no time at the moment to continue this debate but I would like to clear up one point. No, I was not suggesting anything like this. I am well aware that Orphiuchus was a very important constellation in ancient times. I said as much in my post by pointing to the fact that it was one of Ptolemy's constellations that he considered to be important. However, they did not believe it to be a constellation on the ecliptic and therefore did not see it as a potential sign. If they had believed it to be on the ecliptic then we may have had a very different system from the one we have now. It was not until 1930, or somewhere around there, that Orphiuchus became a constellation on the ecliptic. This is when the boundaries of the constellations were changed. Nothing changed except that they simply redrew the boundaries. They do this every now and then just like they have meetings to decide what constitutes a planet. Now we have 13 constellations that are deemed to be on the ecliptic when previously there were 12. This is why people who don't know any better mock astrologers about the 13th sign. They confuse signs and constellations. My point was that no astrologer (apart from a few) decided that now we have a new constellation on the ecliptic that we should make a new sign as well. This would make no sense. So why do astrologers keep insisting on placing new things in the chart without regard for the integrity of the system already in place?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
granny_skot



Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 1633
Location: California, USA

Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sue asked "So why do astrologers keep insisting on placing new things in the chart without regard for the integrity of the system already in place?"

Great Question, I've been thinking aobut htis a lot lately and I have two thoughts to throw out there. One! I think present day astrologers are so entrenched in modern curltural dismissal of astrology, that even though our experience and learning tells us othewise, our first instinct when the IAU says Pluto isn't a planet is to say "oh, NO! what shall we do?" instead of considering their arguements and making a judgement for ourselves on this issue. We so often forget that AStronomy grew out of ASTROLOGY, and not the reverse. We succumb to a very condecending cultural ideology without even realizing it! (my opinion, others may vary) I think we need to pay closer attention to this response and stop and consider our reactions.

Second, there are those that want to grow and change and move on, without having any idea where it is they are growing and changing and moving on too! So the first new fangled notion comes along and without any thought as to where they are going, some people just naturally start being herded in that direction. its an odd phenomena, but one Ive humorously observed many times.

okay, just some thoughts, others may vary.

Granny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GarryP
Moderator


Joined: 23 Oct 2003
Posts: 207
Location: UK

Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does anyone have the time of the crucial vote with which the IAU downgraded Pluto? It was 24th Aug in Prague and the announcement of the vote, I believe, was 6.00pm, but how about the actual vote? Please?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GarryP
Moderator


Joined: 23 Oct 2003
Posts: 207
Location: UK

Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Garry,
You'll find the answer to this question in an article by Nick Kollerstrom that's just been posted here:

http://www.astrozero.co.uk/articles/plutorip.htm

PS - love your work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a bit sad when you have to start responding to your own posts. Then again, it is the one sure way of getting the most sensible answer.

I'm a bit disappointed that Owen Gingerich has shown a lack of understanding on this matter, certainly from the aspect of traditional astrology. I've read much of his work and consider it quite interesting. Still, astronomers have a different agenda.

PS: Love your work too, Garry. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
granny_skot



Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 1633
Location: California, USA

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LOL, We all love Garry P. s work. Smile

I thought of another point on this subject.

In Astrology we call the sun and moon planets, though we know they are not. So why should it bother us what the Heck Astronomers call it?

and antoher point, do two baby planets circling each other make a planet? (pluto and it s moon charon)

and if Pluto is not a planet because it hasn't cleared its path, then neither can Neptune be considered a planet, since what is in Plutos path, is Neptune! and the reverse...

I may think of more points at some point in time, I think people were punch drunk when they voted on this one.

Granny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
amelia



Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 348
Location: Wales

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Got me thinking. Why are we relying on astronomers to come up with a definition of a planet for us? Why don't we astrologers come up with a definition of an "astrologically effective body" which has both a spiritual/philosophical foundations and an empirical justification?

I am dreaming of course; we astrologers are even less co-ordinated and even more at war than the astronomers. Astrologers are incapable of consensus on anything; they think they have a credibility issue because people are sceptical of their belief in the symbolic influence of the heavens....... but really they probably lack credibility because they have no coherent and consistent story.

Well done to the astrologers on coming up with and agreeing an imperfect definition - that is progress we could never achieve. Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 4 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated